How are these AGS 000??

[Titan7]

Diamond #1 F-VS2 1.60ct
Pavillion Depth= 43.7% Pavillion Angle =41.2
Crown Height = 12.6 % Crown angle = 32.4
Table 60.2%
star 51
LGF 78

Diamond #2 G-VS2 1.54ct
PV depth 42.8, PV angle 40.6
CH 15.5%, Crown angle 35.4 ( The CROWN ANGLE looks too steep?)
table 56.6
Star 45 ( Shouldnt this be 50-51)
LGF 79 ( shouldnt this be 76-7
Total depth 62.1

 

[Andelain]

Diamond #1 F-VS2 1.60ct
Pavillion Depth= 43.7% Pavillion Angle =41.2
Crown Height = 12.6 % Crown angle = 32.4
Table 60.2%
star 51
LGF 78

Diamond #2 G-VS2 1.54ct
PV depth 42.8, PV angle 40.6
CH 15.5%, Crown angle 35.4 ( The CROWN ANGLE looks too steep?)
table 56.6
Star 45 ( Shouldnt this be 50-51)
LGF 79 ( shouldnt this be 76-7
Total depth 62.1

I can speak from experience on the LGF's. I had a stone that was AGS 0 with 81% LGF's, and it was a beauty. Skinny arrows, LOTS of light return.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Remember that if a diamond is AGS0 with a light performance report it has been ray traced. 40,000 virtual light rays are mathematically calculated and the contribution of ever facet is taken into account. Small deficits in one or more areas (brightness, contrast, dispersion, leakage) can be present. But they cannot be more than .50 on the metrics or else the stone will drop to AGS1.

Therefore, even within AGS0 there is a range of cut quality. The concept of "super ideals" is related to this fact.

 

[Titan7]

Here is the cert, look like lots of green?? The holloway tool gives it a 1.2. Should I have it brought in?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Here is the cert, look like lots of green?? The holloway tool gives it a 1.2. Should I have it brought in?

What do you mean lots of green? Are you referring to the green center in the ASET light map on the cert?

 

[Titan7]

There seems to be more green around the base of the arrowheads. I note the green in the center as being pretty normal.

Biggest concern was the LGF/and SF and the crown angle of 35.5 degrees.

not sure if this is a problem.

 

[flyingpig]

The photo quality is poor to see ASET image clearly.

Regarding star length, LGH, and steep crown angle, please see
http://www.agslab.com/members/content/docs/Complete_Explanation_of_AGS_Cut_System.pdf

According to this (and previous threads), you cannot just look at individual numbers. Rather, it is the combination of crown, pavillion, star and lower half % that is important.

I do not see anything wrong with 79 LGH. WF's ACA's requirement for LGH is 76-80. The steep crown angle is matched with the relatively low pavilion angle of 40.6. I don't know where you got such narrow ideal ranges for star% and lower half %.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

There seems to be more green around the base of the arrowheads. I note the green in the center as being pretty normal.

Biggest concern was the LGF/and SF and the crown angle of 35.5 degrees.

not sure if this is a problem.

Depends on what you consider a problem. On one level it is reasonable to conclude there is no problem whatsoever since you have the top grade from the most stringent lab in the world with regard to cut quality. On the other hand, if you are looking for a super ideal, you need more information.

 

[Titan7]

Thanks for the link, WOW!! That's the info I was looking for!

 

[Titan7]

There seems to be more green around the base of the arrowheads. I note the green in the center as being pretty normal.

Biggest concern was the LGF/and SF and the crown angle of 35.5 degrees.

not sure if this is a problem.

Depends on what you consider a problem. On one level it is reasonable to conclude there is no problem whatsoever since you have the top grade from the most stringent lab in the world with regard to cut quality. On the other hand, if you are looking for a super ideal, you need more information.

Thank you, I have been on your site several times, awesome diamonds, I am just trying to decide if my old eyes will notice the difference between your ACA best of the best and a ags000 like this one. The numbers look good but I guess I would need to see it. I need to find a reason to fly to Texas, lol

 

[Titan7]

Got to see the 1.54 G VS2 today. I took photos with the H&A viewer and Ideal Scope. What a pain!!

So what I noticed is it's REALLY hard to keep everything perfectly lined up, any tilting will distort the images. When I first look through the IS, I saw a white ring under the table, but I later noticed that if I brought my eye to the top of the IS the white would turn red. Tilting also caused white to turn red, made me thing the diamond had a lot of leakage. Let me know your thoughts from the photos.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Titan7,
You did a good job of taking those images. Does not look like a lot of leakage to me. And the stone has good optical precision. I'm guessing it a real pretty rock.

 

[bcr83]

Very interesting, a stone I am looking at has all the Super ideal attributes but showed leakage under an IS. Wondering if was not done properly because the images were tilted. Interested to see what others think..

 

[Titan7]

Thanks, I feel better, I took these photos with my iPhone5s. So I gather I was using the IS correctly. I noticed that if I had my eye too far from the top of it the image looked like the 3rd IS photo, when I moved closer that white ring under the table turned red. If I moved my head it alternated between white and red. I first thought it was the "ring of death"? Still makes me a little nervous as I am no pro, I think the ACA diamonds are better, this is a replacement stone for the one my wife chipped pretty badly. Jewerlers Mutual directed me to this locale jewler. The Cert is about a year old, If I go with this stone, I will have it sent back for recert and laser engraving. The jewler is looking for another one like this in F color to compare. I wanted to be at 7.5mm, this one is 7.38mm.

 

[bcr83]

Thanks, I feel better, I took these photos with my iPhone5s. So I gather I was using the IS correctly. I noticed that if I had my eye too far from the top of it the image looked like the 3rd IS photo, when I moved closer that white ring under the table turned red. If I moved my head it alternated between white and red. I first thought it was the "ring of death"? Still makes me a little nervous as I am no pro, I think the ACA diamonds are better, this is a replacement stone for the one my wife chipped pretty badly. Jewerlers Mutual directed me to this locale jewler. The Cert is about a year old, If I go with this stone, I will have it sent back for recert and laser engraving. The jewler is looking for another one like this in F color to compare. I wanted to be at 7.5mm, this one is 7.38mm.

HI Titan,

I am looking at very similar sizes, if you don't mind me asking what is the size of your wifes finger? I am too looking for a diameter of 7.5+

The 1.51 I am keen on is 7.38x7.42 - I really don't know if there is even a difference, its about 2% additional face up size if you work it out

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Titan, did the original diamond come from WF? Do you have a connection to the local jeweler? Because you could ask JM to work with Whiteflash on your replacement. I imagine they'd have a better selection of ideal cuts than any local jeweler could access.

 

[Titan7]

I think her ring finger is 5/3/4 or 6. I was also looking for 7.5mm but that seems to be in the 1.65-1.70ct size in a ags 000. We compared this 1.54 which is 7.38 to a 7.5mm non ideal cut just for size comparison, my wife looked at them and could not tell the difference in size until she looked at them for a minute or so. This was a side by side comparison. When they were 6-8 inches apart it's really hard to see the difference between 7.38 and 7.5mm. We are having the jewler look for another ideal cut stone like this to compare but this one was nice. I do prefer a 55% table but it's really, really hard to find cuts like this unless you go with WF, BG, GOG, and others. You really don't realize this until you look. These retailers have cutter that work for them. Outside of them, it's hard to find cuts like this.

My wife's prior stone was not a WF stone. If we can't find anything better in the next week or so we will go with this on. We found out we could work with WF after we were referred to this local jewler, he has been working for us, I would feel bad not letting him handle this at this point. If we can't find a good stone that's always an option to move to WF, those ACA stone are soooooo nice!!

 

[bcr83]

Thanks Titan,

My GF is the same 5 3/4. She tried on a 1.53 and it looked good, it looked better/bigger with a 6 claw setting IMO. Interesting on the 1.7 vs 1.5 I have been torn between both and had to drop to SI1 to maintain colour/cut if I went 1.7

The 1.5 I am looking at is cut really well and I don't think its worth me paying extra for such a small size increase, it really seems to me that if anything it's just able to say you have a 1.7 which is that tad closer to a 2.. Realistically it's just too hard see the size difference.

 

[Titan7]

Agree with you 100%. If you have to see them side by side and still have to really look for the difference why bother. To go to a 1.65-1.70 G VS2, it costs about $2500-$3500 more at least. Coming from a 1.01 F VS1 @ 6.48-6.50mm diamond she is happy, I just want to make sure I am reading this images correctly

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Awesome, so you are getting to go from 1 ct to 1.5 and they are just giving you the replacement cost for the original diamond and you are adding to that to upgrade? The 1.54 looks good. It is not to the standard of an ACA, but as long as you see it and know that it is a beautiful stone, it looks like a nice option to me.

 

[Titan7]

To all, I just realized that I included an IS photo of the "calibration CZ", it's the 3rd photo in the post above, I noticed the smaller table of the calibration CN as I was reviewing the 20-30 photos I took. Just an fyi. The first two images and the H&A viewer images are the actual diamond. The Heart's photo was a ABSOLUTE pain to take, had the "V's distorting all over the place with "ANY" movement, I tried my best to catch them infocus. I really think you need a photo rig set up to take an accurate photo of the hearts. I am still concerned about the clefts in the hearts, I have read that's not the best option, will wait to see what else is out there, we can't hold on to this one forever.

Anyhow, just an FYI if somebody else didn't catch this. The diamond looks awesome, but I keep wondering if one in closer to the middle of the specs would look better? So hard to accomplish this with such limited availability, decisions, decisions.

 

[solgen]

If you don't like the clefts in the hearts then you could look for a diamond with shorter LGF. Are you looking for perfect optical symmetry though? That diamond looks like it's a great performer. If you want a true super ideal hearts and arrows then that'a different story. Whether that would result in any appreciable difference in light performance is debatable.

What qualities/characteristics of the diamond do you not like?

 

[Titan7]

If you don't like the clefts in the hearts then you could look for a diamond with shorter LGF. Are you looking for perfect optical symmetry though? That diamond looks like it's a great performer. If you want a true super ideal hearts and arrows then that'a different story. Whether that would result in any appreciable difference in light performance is debatable.

What qualities/characteristics of the diamond do you not like?

Well I went in wanting a Super ideal H&A, but dealing with a local jewler for an insurance claim/upgrade really limits choices when there are really only a few places in the country that deal with the Super Ideal H&As. I guess I was hoping to find something closer to the 34.5CA/40.8PA vs something at 35.4CA/40.6PA, perhaps closure to the middle of the super ideal range. With that said, perhaps that's not going to be a better performing diamond? It's really easy to get caught up in the numbers, the IS photos I took look pretty good assuming I used it correctly. Sure the hearts aren't "textbook" H&A, but without every seeing a "textbook" H&A I don't know if the performance is something I would notice if somebody showed me both but did not disclose which was which.

I know there are more important things in life, I just want to get my wife the best performing diamond I can. There must be some point of deminishing returns, I just want to make sure do my best to reach that point but not pass it.

thanks!

 

[solgen]

The point of diminishing returns will also be subjective. If you want the best then performing diamond then specs should matter. However the differences are so minute IMO that under the vast amount of viewing circumstances you'd be hard pressed to see a difference. A diamond "closer to the 34.5CA/40.8PA vs something at 35.4CA/40.6PA" will have a slightly different look. Whether it's better is subjective and again you might have a difficult time discerning. I would ask the jeweler if they can obtain a 34.5/40.8 so you could compare them side by side just to see if you like the look of one over the other or if you can even tell the difference. The one you have chosen looks to be a superb performer so you may very well have reached the point of diminishing return.

 

[Titan7]

Thanks, that's sound advice, I will see if there is anything else they can bring in so I can compare it. I did watch some of the on-line videos from GOG comparing AGS 1 to a AGS 000 Super Ideal H&A, while there was a difference it was not night and day but I could see it, I guess I am just figuring the difference between a AGS 0 cut with 0 light performance would make an even smaller difference.


Thanks again! will post updates.